.Due to popular vote initiatives/propositions, Maine and Maryland now will accept *** marriages as declared by certifiication. No state ever has previously approved *** marriage via amendment/proposition due to popular vote. AKA: More people thought gays should be able to marry than didn't. No "activist judges" or "liberal legislature". The people hath spoken.

Washington also joins these, though the link I submit hasn't declared it, since I chose the purportedly reputable CNN rather than a link that could be dismissed by insane conseravative posters...or I don't remember right....

If progressives refuse to get behind a non-progressive like Obama, or etc., at least they/we can be a bit encouraged by these results. Of course, Obama might quash both. He's severely harried California medicinal marijuana growers and distributors despite promising he wouldn't. And while he did a great job on Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, will he also relegate Defense of Marriage Act to the dustbin? Whereas gays who marry in Maine/Maryland transfer their marriage to other states?

Anyway, it's wonderful to see large amounts of common citizens opening up to these issues. Ten years ago the ballots were full of marriage-only-man-woman propositions. Today those have been upended by the two ballots above, plus the defeat of an attempt of that old-school iniiative in uh, a state I can't remember.

Of course not all laws should be decided by referendum. But when the laws are either 1) A civil rights issue ala *** marriage; or 2) A civil rights issue ala imbibing what you will into your body; then the referendum is mirroring the Constitution. (ala 1st, 9th, 10th Amendments).

It's always encouraging to see someone's rating so low that they are automatically sub-default as soon as they post a new thread Karma system: working as intended.

Uh. Okay. "Glad that *** marriage is being accepted by US populace." Apparently that position is intendedly working wrong. Good job, karma system or whatever! I'm a fool for starting a thread being glad that gays and weed-smokers were making progress. Sorry Stormfront.com!

Anyway, since I'm anathema, and to anyone bold enough to read a subdefault post--please if you have s readable karma post status that won't be mocked by Saudi moderators of this site, make a thread about this rather enormous victory for *** rights.

And slighty less civilly important but still impactive recreational weed-smoking rights.

Anyway, since I'm anathema, and to anyone bold enough to read a subdefault post--please if you have s readable karma post status that won't be mocked by Saudi moderators of this site, make a thread about this rather enormous victory for *** rights.

I'm not feeling the love.

If you're really attempting to come off as congratulatory tolerant, you should probably not throw bigoted remarks into the very same paragraph

Anyway, since I'm anathema, and to anyone bold enough to read a subdefault post--please if you have s readable karma post status that won't be mocked by Saudi moderators of this site, make a thread about this rather enormous victory for *** rights.

I'm not feeling the love.

If you're really attempting to come off as congratulatory tolerant, you should probably not throw bigoted remarks into the very same paragraph

Are you referring to the mention of "Saudi"? I'm sure you're aware that this wasn't racist, it was nationalistist topical, since Saudi Arabia is the absolute worst destroyer of human and women (and obviously ***) rights in the Middle East, by far. So I thought it was apt, considering the Admin called my support for *** marriage a Great Example of karma working.

Anyway, "come off as congragulatory tolerant"? The **** does that mean? I don't care who marries anyone. I don't care who beds anyone else. If two people are happy with each other, that's awesome. At this point though, they only get hundreds of state and federal rights if they marry as an opposite *** couple. This is ********* You know all this.

That and the topic has already come up in several currently active threads.

Hadn't seen that. Tried to look, must've missed them. Plus I thought this was kind of important enough to have its own thread, Feel free to ignore it though since the subject is being discussed elsewhere.

I meant the karma system is working as intended because YOU are sub-default automatically. Note that it had nothing to do with your post: you were sub-D before you even posted it.

Good for *** marriage, and good for the Karma system!

Good for *** marriage indeed, but I don't know what the karma system has to do with an initial post advocating this with links to results of several states. A great result of the system would seem to be sub-default on a **** OP. Which is what I thought you were gloating about, what with your Saudi hatred for tolerance and gays (Jophiel--I'm being facetious, not racist here, Saudis do suck though).

If my OP was actually indeed ****/already-covered/egoistical, I'm sorry for all involved who suffered from reading it. And I'm sorry for my bloated ego. At least gays in a couple states will be able to get state benefits from marriage while ************* each other in those *** spots. (Jophiel--that last sentence was also meant to be facetious).

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

But let's put it back on to the theme. It's remarkable that the actual watershed national elections results isn't a political office, but rather allowing *** marriage and weed-smoking, by popular vote (at least until the Federal Government destroys them).

It's remarkable that the actual watershed national elections results isn't a political office, but rather allowing *** marriage and weed-smoking, by popular vote (at least until the Federal Government destroys them).

It's only remarkable if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

It's remarkable that the actual watershed national elections results isn't a political office, but rather allowing *** marriage and weed-smoking, by popular vote (at least until the Federal Government destroys them).

It's only remarkable if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade.

****, longer than that. Social issues have been carrying elections for a really, really long time. But especially since the party restructuring during the Civil Rights Movement.

It's remarkable that the actual watershed national elections results isn't a political office, but rather allowing *** marriage and weed-smoking, by popular vote (at least until the Federal Government destroys them).

It's only remarkable if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade.

****, longer than that. Social issues have been carrying elections for a really, really long time. But especially since the party restructuring during the Civil Rights Movement.

Sure, you folk can easily dismiss this, because you have no clue about US legal history. My point wasn't about "carrying elections", since both Romney and Obama are almost equally against legal weed and legal *** marriage. My point was that these two priviledges were approved by a majority of the population in several particular states.

It took LBJ and Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act. It took the Supreme Court to uphold abortion rights. No President or court or Congress has had an inkling to provide gays with marriage, or marijuana with legality (okay, on the latter, it was only illegal 20th Century...).

And yes, it is remarkable even if I've been paying attention the last decade. In the last decade every popular Proposition for *** marriage and for legal marijuana was shot down. In fact, there was a big movement for other state ballots to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman, which voters approved. Voters not only approved gays marrying, and in at least one state I can't remember denied one of those bills to define man-woman marriage, but they also approved legal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is already legal in 18 states. *** marriage is legal in nine states.

This legalization has nothing to do with the earlier civil rights gains people have cited. Or at the very least, they only can be compared to very early advocation. The Federal Government declares marijuana a prohibited substance, and as Obama has shown, will heavily prosecute offenders. The Supreme Court has never been presented a case. *** marriage is legal in many states, yet President Obama has not made a real effort to repeal Defense of Marriage Acts, which allows states not allowing it to not recognizing incoming couples. Federal Law, which permits 1000 or more legal rights/priviledges to same-*** married couples, does not permit one to same-*** spouses/couples. The Supreme Court, AFAIK, has not taken a case on this.

This is utterly unlike the Civil Rights era, at least as far as the final resolution. No US courts (except for California) have intervented. No President or Congress has intervened. It's now and until (when?) in individual states' hands to declare themselves opposed to the Federal Government's position of *** marriage not being recognized, and marijuana not being a legal product.

Do any of you actually think the Democratic Party currently advocates a "Legal Marijuana" or "*** Marriage=Straight Marriage" position? How utterly naive are you? The times of stalwart civil rights advocaters like LBJ and RFK and JFK are gone. The times of stalwart rights agents of the court such as Marshall, Brandeis, Byron are gone (not only that they don't currently in part exist, but because they as a whole refuse to adjudicate on a case).

It's remarkable that the actual watershed national elections results isn't a political office, but rather allowing *** marriage and weed-smoking, by popular vote (at least until the Federal Government destroys them).

It's only remarkable if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade.

****, longer than that. Social issues have been carrying elections for a really, really long time. But especially since the party restructuring during the Civil Rights Movement.

Favorite line, "What will you make her for breakfast? Burnt scrambled eggs? We'll make her a motherfucking quiche.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin